Scientists have conducted studies where pets and owners were separated by considerable distance and found the pet could sense their owners's actions. For instance, if the owner went to leave randomly in a vehicle, around the same time, the pet would go to a window to see if their owner's car would pass by. We know everything has a physical mechanism but the mistake is limiting possibilities or believing all is imagination just because you dont have the ability.
The mistake is thinking parasychology is real An omission is not providing a link reference supporting such a statement in which parasychology is linked to such physical reactions par·a·psy·chol·o·gy noun the study of mental phenomena that are excluded from or inexplicable by orthodox scientific psychology (such as hypnosis, telepathy, etc.). Google Which I think indicates it is all in the mind Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You have a link to these studies? And they adequately ruled out coincidence, selection bias etc? Their science is sound? While I'd like to believe the studies' conclusions are true, I'm fairly sure that any study that concludes as you have claimed will be shown to be full of poor science. Otherwise I'd expect Nobel prizes to be imminent. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The mistake, as has been alluded to above, is in taking things as true without adequate support. Until then we can at best say that we do not know, that we haven't ruled it out etc.
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/175...y-sense-when-owners-are-returning-home-video/ “It is better to believe than to disbelieve; in so doing you bring everything to the realm of possibility.” ― Albert Einstein
Re: Scientists Investigate If Pets Telepathically Sense When Owners Are Returning Home http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/175...y-sense-when-owners-are-returning-home-video/ Sheldrake operates under an interpretative preconception that "parapsychology" or whatever territory is legit, with an approach that may facilitate explanations along that line (including the possibility of being lax or less rigorous with experiments). Wiseman operates under an interpretative preconception that deems such illegitimate beforehand (or is at least cautionary about it), with an approach that may facilitate non-extraordinary explanations (including multiple re-testing / scrutiny by other researchers). That preference is line with the methodological naturalism and potentially other assumptions[*] which many scientists either formally or informally proceed under. This doesn't necessarily mean that eccentric / discredited views like Sheldrakes's are perpetually outcast. One merely need to make them undeniably effective or utile in the public sector abroad, independent of the blessing of science establishment. But such practicality might be difficult to exploit when it comes to a matter like "telepathic pets", or if any commercially outputted marvel is itself still vulnerable to rival interpretations slash mundane explanations. - - - - - - - [*] Also regulating ideas like existence, causality, position symmetry, time symmetry, noncontradiction, occam’s razor, etc
https://www.theatlantic.com/personal/archive/2009/03/the-heresies-of-freeman-dyson/56062/ http://www.oddee.com/item_99038.aspx On the quantum level it indicates life does not work in the strict and rational way we assume it does and that quantum flux and even the illogical/absurd/twisted is evident all around us.
True However not everything turns out to be possible or worthy of belief Michael345 circa May 2017 Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I have noticed a few even post in Sciforums Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
No, even in life itself. Have you noticed or do you go around only noticing what makes sense to you or is logical? Just because you live in your head all the time, doesn't negate the dynamics of things that go on other levels. It's just a way of compartmentalizing.
birch The hypothesis that paranormal are real but lie outside the limits of science is supported by a great mass of evidence which the definetion of paranormal supports Paranormal Not scientifically explainable However One fact that emerges clearly from the stories is that paranormal events occur, if they occur at all, only when people are under stress and experiencing strong emotion A fact cannot emerge if the paranormal is subject to if they occur Not all paranormal activites supposedly occur when people are under stress The rest of the post is blah blah Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
There are so many things at ALL levels I notice Some make sense Some don't But I notice them all Disclaimer I notice those with sufficient Energy to elicit a neurological response so I might miss some Also some will be out of the range of my senses I miss all of those I do find it curious when posters in forums such as this miss Poe Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
He's mentioned this before. What he really means is River does not understand the full spectrum of the sun.
This one statement is pretty much proof that the concept is utter nonsense. Unless they're claiming they can also read the minds of pets, how can they possibly know why a pet might be doing something?
because they would go around the window in those times/instances. it just means it was able to detect more fine-tuned than we can certain things but it's an illustration/example that just because we can't understand or know something currently or we lack the ability does not equate something isn't real.
The conclusion that we can know why they did something is bunk. It casts a veil of wish-fulfillment of the whole study. No study approaching anything rigorous would, even for a moment, suggest we can know the thought process in such a case. It means no such thing. It's anthropomorphist wish fulfillment.